Hanzze wrote:I am not so used to english gramma but does "," and "and" mean that things are the same or are those simply sighns to list words whether they are in dependency of each other or not.

Simply signs to list words.

In Pali as well, consecutive listing of the words doesn't mean they are synonyms. On the contrary, Buddha's words are so laconic that he wouldn't waste two words to denote the same thing.

So the fact that 'bodhi' is listed along with 'nibbana' doesn't mean they are synonyms.

Are you sure of this? Based upon what?

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Ñāṇa wrote:The methodologies of textual criticism, post-modern deconstruction, as well as archaeological and epigraphical finds, etc., are not able to demonstrate what the historical Buddha actually taught, or what the early Buddhist communities actually believed in the early centuries after his parinibbāna.

What I have been suggesting is that these tools are limited, and they are quite unnecessary for the practice of Buddhism.

This is true of scholastic materials generally, the Theravada corpus notwithstanding. Historical-textual criticism offers a valuable perspective, even corrective at times, but a broad reading of the tradition can become historical at the expense of practice. Satipatthana offers a broadside approach to the Dhamma, but it is possible to pick and choose among various approaches, which are helpful or unhelpful to various sorts of people.

I do care about accurately representing the Theravāda Tipiṭaka. Tradition and lineage are important for the continuity of the dhammavinaya. In fact, there is no dhammavinaya without a living lineage to transmit it from generation to generation.

You are attempting to transmit a frozen edifice, rather than recognizing that due to the stratification we mentioned earlier, we can see a progressive evolution within Theravada. Historical-textual criticism is here to stay (one may say it was always present, it is simply that better tools are being developed), and should become part of the living tradition.

Histories are helpful, but as various efforts at dating the life of the Buddha have shown, they are in conflict and the correct dates are probably nowhere correctly recorded (roughly 480-400 BCE, give or take a decade, at last estimate). Again, this could become part of the living tradition, which enables us to recognize that the scholastic materials we have are not historical texts in our understanding, but another type of literature which can be useful as such without compromising your ideal of skepticism.

This is a move the Catholic Church has made, and I think Theravada can bend that much at least. (One move the Church has always made, and which the Buddha seems to have wanted to prevent the Sangha from making, has been to claim dogmatic authority. This role was given to the Dhamma at a time preceding the scholastic period, so it is important to know what range of texts might be encompassed here. We know right away, however, that no scholastic texts are included.)

if you want to avoid all kinds of novel interpretations it is most helpful to refer to the Niddesa, Paṭisambhidāmagga, Vibhaṅga, etc.

But those are novel interpretations themselves; traditional, but once upon a time quite novel enough, and there are other texts to which these respond, and texts which responded to them, and so it went, and so it goes.

Living tradition; that's really how there can be a discussion about a path to buddhahood at all - it became possible to talk about as the tradition developed, in the same way that Mahayana concepts became possible to talk about.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Hanzze wrote:I am not so used to english gramma but does "," and "and" mean that things are the same or are those simply sighns to list words whether they are in dependency of each other or not.

Simply signs to list words.

In Pali as well, consecutive listing of the words doesn't mean they are synonyms. On the contrary, Buddha's words are so laconic that he wouldn't waste two words to denote the same thing.

So the fact that 'bodhi' is listed along with 'nibbana' doesn't mean they are synonyms.

So it could be possible that they mostly go deeper step by step? It could mean that (in the context they where used here in argumentation) that these are steps, steps to one and the same aim. How ever it is not easy possible to take it as equal as well it is not possible to refer it as something total different.

But that does not mean that there could be no differnt between the reminders of "beings" who have attained the highest goal. When we think that many arahants had very different talents, we can easy develop the different nature of a Buddha (as a wheelturner) which is maybe in dependency on previous deeds (which are causing the reminders, even special reminders).

Just some thought and inspirations for those who have great knowledge in regard of the scripts.

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

if you want to avoid all kinds of novel interpretations it is most helpful to refer to the Niddesa, Paṭisambhidāmagga, Vibhaṅga, etc.

But those are novel interpretations themselves; traditional, but once upon a time quite novel enough, and there are other texts to which these respond, and texts which responded to them, and so it went, and so it goes.

Indeed. John Henry Newman said as much of the Anglican as being a “paper church”.

daverupa wrote:Living tradition; that's really how there can be a discussion about a path to buddhahood at all - it became possible to talk about as the tradition developed, in the same way that Mahayana concepts became possible to talk about.

This was what Newman sought in Catholicism that the Anglicans lacked. Had he applied the same critical thinking to Catholicism as he did to Anglicanism one wonders where he would have landed.

Who are you?’ said the Caterpillar.

Alice replied rather shyly, ‘I—I hardly know, sir, just at present—at least I knew who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.’”

tiltbillings wrote:The revulsion business is interesting, given the differences between the two texts, but cessation (nirodha) certainly seems to be a term indicating nibbana and it comes befor sambodhi. Also, I am taking (sam)bodhi as meaning complete insight into the Four Ennobling Truths. Here is a fuller look at my argument: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 4&#p149864 If you have not, take a look, please and if you wish we can continue this in a new thread. It is worth a careful, considered discussion and it promises to be interesting.

Yes please, let's open a new thread but open it on the “open dhamma” forum, because I can’t quote you much sutta now as I no longer have the books and the ATI translation is not complete. I’ll just have to use the sutta you quoted.

tiltbillings wrote:The revulsion business is interesting, given the differences between the two texts, but cessation (nirodha) certainly seems to be a term indicating nibbana and it comes befor sambodhi. Also, I am taking (sam)bodhi as meaning complete insight into the Four Ennobling Truths. Here is a fuller look at my argument: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9747&p=149864&#p149864 If you have not, take a look, please and if you wish we can continue this in a new thread. It is worth a careful, considered discussion and it promises to be interesting.

Yes please, let's open a new thread but open it on the “open dhamma” forum, because I can’t quote you much sutta now as I no longer have the books and the ATI translation is not complete. I’ll just have to use the sutta you quoted.

Thanks.

Sounds good. I'll do this later in the day or evening, depending upon when I have the uninterrupted time.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

As I've already mentioned, the general principles and developmental path structure that has been systemized in the ancient treatises is what they have to offer that is important, not literal adherence to every word and letter. These general principles and path structures are dynamic enough to accommodate the diversity of practices being taught within the context of Theravāda Buddhism today. In short: There's no need to reinvent the dhamma wheel.

daverupa wrote:Historical-textual criticism is here to stay (one may say it was always present, it is simply that better tools are being developed), and should become part of the living tradition.

For almost every argument put forward on the basis of historical-textual criticism a reasonable counter-argument can be made. It's a conceptual labyrinth. And I've yet to see any new interpretation of the general dhamma principles, developmental path structure, or meditation practices that is a significant improvement over what is given in the ancient treatises.

daverupa wrote:Living tradition; that's really how there can be a discussion about a path to buddhahood at all - it became possible to talk about as the tradition developed, in the same way that Mahayana concepts became possible to talk about.

The general Buddhist principles and training precepts that are given in the Tipiṭaka live in the shared thought-world of millions of Buddhists around the world today. Even the more advanced doctrinal aspects would be recognizable for an educated Tibetan geshe or Chinese, Korean, or Japanese Abhidharma specialist.

Ñāṇa wrote:As I've already mentioned, the *general principles and developmental path structure that has been systemized in *the ancient treatises is what they have to offer that is important, not literal adherence to every word and letter. These general principles and path structures are dynamic enough to accommodate the diversity of practices being taught within the context of Theravāda Buddhism today. In short: There's no need to reinvent the dhamma wheel.

B: Sure, this is what studying Theravada will reveal, and it's one take on a compilation of Suttas, one expression of a Vinaya. There are many others, some alive today and others not. There is a burgeoning Theravada revival, perhaps, and the religion is flowing along in modernity with quite a lot going on.

Now, one of these modern developments involves a recognition that general principles and developmental path structure exists in the suttavinaya itself, and is itself a product of historical development (see below); just as the farmers and wandering ascetics did not necessarily need 'ancient treatises', we can recognize the contribution of Theravada texts and approaches to making the Dhamma meaningful for generations, while nevertheless pursuing meaningful modern relationships with these suttavinaya materials.

Rogue interpretations are not thereby given carte blanche - there is a middle ground here that avoids feckless misunderstandings as well as scholastic dogmatism.

I: This is just vague...

*For almost every argument put forward on the basis of historical-textual criticism a reasonable counter-argument can be made. It's a conceptual labyrinth. And *I've yet to see any new interpretation of the general dhamma principles, developmental path structure, or meditation practices that is a significant improvement over what is given in the ancient treatises.

B: ...so vague...

I: ...well, at least you nearly admit that this is your opinion. I, for one, find that such things as Analayo's comparative study shed fascinating light on the historical development of the suttavinaya nearer to the pre-scholastic period, which is of great interest to me as it informs my practice.

The general Buddhist principles and training precepts that are given in the Tipiṭaka live in the shared thought-world of millions of Buddhists around the world today. Even the more advanced doctrinal aspects would be recognizable for an educated Tibetan geshe or Chinese, Korean, or Japanese Abhidharma specialist.

Why are you trying to haul the Theravada Abhidhamma with an argumentum ad populum? Is this the last bastion of scholastic material which we must, must endorse?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:Sure, this is what studying Theravada will reveal, and it's one take on a compilation of Suttas, one expression of a Vinaya. There are many others, some alive today and others not.

I'm not just limiting the general principles and developmental path structure to Theravāda sources. These general principles are common to Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika, and Yogācāra treatises as well. Again, these general principles and path structures are dynamic enough to accommodate diverse practices. Moreover, most everything that was important to say about the Buddhadhamma was said in these Indian treatises prior to about 500 CE.

daverupa wrote:Why are you trying to haul the Theravada Abhidhamma with an argumentum ad populum? Is this the last bastion of scholastic material which we must, must endorse?

Again, I'm not limiting this to Theravāda Abhidhamma. I'm talking about a pan-Buddhist worldview regarding such things as kamma, merit, rebirth, multiple realms, the supremacy of the Buddha, conditioned arising, the aggregates, sense spheres, elements, four noble truths, etc., etc. These general principles are common to all extant Buddhist traditions, yet on this DW Forum we see discussions impeded by members who are unwilling to accept well established definitions of Buddhist terms and general Buddhist principles, often by appealing to some version of an Early Buddhism thesis.

Ñāṇa wrote: yet on this DW Forum we see discussions impeded by members who are unwilling to accept well established definitions of Buddhist terms and general Buddhist principles, often by appealing to some version of an Early Buddhism thesis.

So, the terms are etched in carbon steel, not be changed by some upstart? There is no way that the question of what bodhi means cannot be looked from the stand point of the suttas alone, because the suttas are somewhow incomplete? But the commentarial literature, which is not necessarily consistent, shows levels of evolutionary development (not to mention the significant variation among the various schools), and it is this later collection of texts is what we must filter the suttas through in order to truly understand them? There are, of course, sections on DW where the strict Theravadin point of view can be examined and expoiunded upon without the unseemly disruptions of those who might see things a bit differently. This section, the "Open Dhamma," is, howver, not so limited, allowing for such explorations. You, of course, do not have to like it, but rather than complaining about it, offer a reasoned, well argued and exampled response, something you have yet to do in this thread.

The reality is, while the tradition and the hardcore orthodoxy has a significant place, it is not the whole of the Theravada, as such figures as Ajahn Chah or Ven Buddhadasa, among others makes quite clear.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Dmytro wrote:On the contrary, Buddha's words are so laconic that he wouldn't waste two words to denote the same thing.

Laconic? I think we are reading a different set of suttas.

Here is a non-laconic list, MN i 167; MLDB page 260: "And it is hard to see this truth, namely, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana." Certainly the denotations overlap, and the connotation here, with this list, is that these expressions are all referring to the same thing, nibbana.

It is the same for the very common list, MN ii 83; MLDB page 697: “This is the good practice instituted by me now, which leads to complete disenchantment [ekantanibbāya], to dispassion [virāgāya], cessatation [nirodhāya], to peace[upasamāya], to direct knowledge [abhiññāya], to enlightenment [sambodhāya], to Nibbana.” Each of the items in this list points to and defines the same thing.

There are innumerable lists in the suttas, and these lists are always interesting and always instructive as to what information is being presented. Sometimes a list will show a progression, or -- as in the two lists above -- they present equivalencies, looking at the same thing from differing angles as represented by the different terms used.

So the fact that 'bodhi' is listed along with 'nibbana' doesn't mean they are synonyms.

It means that bodhi is referring to the same thing, carrying the same connotations.

It is a matter of opinion to call the suttas “laconic.” I find the suttas rich in content, sometimes terse and sometimes expansive, and always worth exploration, but in no way would I use such a word as “laconic” to broadly characterize the whole of the suttas, and that is a matter of opinion.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

The reality is, while the tradition and the hardcore orthodoxy has a significant place, it is not the whole of the Theravada, as such figures as Ajahn Chah or Ven Buddhadasa, among others makes quite clear.

Yes, some of the more recent teachers of the Ajahn Chah Forest Tradition lineage are definately not always orthodox in their approach, although they often refer to the suttas. Ajahn Sumedho is the first one that comes to mind.

Nana wrote: I'm talking about a pan-Buddhist worldview regarding such things as kamma....

Last weekend at Amaravati monastery, Ajahn Amaro (Ajahn Chah lineage) gave an excellent talk about kamma and mentioned that a deterministic view of kamma can be very common amongst westerners, as well asians. The talk was called "Who's pulling the strings?" and it should be available to listen to on the internet soon.

Ñāṇa wrote:These general principles are common to all extant Buddhist traditions,

...and are variously understood. This glosses over important differentiations between scholastic traditions, and is still an argumentum ad populum. "General principles", as a unifying variable, is hardly precise enough to support your claim that very old scholastic traditions are valuable while modern scholastic efforts are not. The claim "most everything that was important to say about the Buddhadhamma was said in these Indian treatises prior to about 500 CE" is wholly without foundation.

Akin to your use of "ancient treatises", you seem to be using terms which cover broad, unspecified realms of meaning in order to avoid addressing the stratification in these various texts.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:... very old scholastic traditions are valuable while modern scholastic efforts are not. The claim "most everything that was important to say about the Buddhadhamma was said in these Indian treatises prior to about 500 CE" is wholly without foundation..

It seems to be one of these modern scholastic ideas that the ancient commentaries are "scholastic". I would say that the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta or the meditation advice collected from the commentaries into the Vissudhimagga are quite the opposite. These are summaries of knowledge from experienced practitioners, and are, in my opinion, the opposite of "scholastic".

What I would be inclined to label "scholastic" would be to try to work out the details of the Buddha's Path purely from analysis of the Suttas, thereby discounting the experience of ancient and modern practitioners.

daverupa wrote:This glosses over important differentiations between scholastic traditions, and is still an argumentum ad populum. "General principles", as a unifying variable, is hardly precise enough to support your claim that very old scholastic traditions are valuable while modern scholastic efforts are not.

It's not argumentum ad populum, rather, it's a matter of pragmatism: accepting and using established Buddhist conventions. Novel definitions and interpretations are a waste of time. They're unnecessary conceptual noise. Like it or not, barring global catastrophe, texts like the Visuddhimagga, the Abhidhammatthasangaha, and the Abhidharmakośabhāsya will still be studied and taught long after we are all dead and gone.

daverupa wrote:The claim "most everything that was important to say about the Buddhadhamma was said in these Indian treatises prior to about 500 CE" is wholly without foundation.

Humans are still just as stupid, greedy, and mean as they were 2500 years ago, and the dhammavinaya is still just as effective as it was 2500 years ago. The Pāli Tipiṭaka and commentarial literature are a complete presentation of the dhammavinaya. And the related traditions (Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika, and early Yogācāra) cover any alternative interpretations that have any relevance.

daverupa wrote:Akin to your use of "ancient treatises", you seem to be using terms which cover broad, unspecified realms of meaning in order to avoid addressing the stratification in these various texts.

I acknowledge the theories regarding stratification, and generally accept that their was historical development of Buddhist ideas. However, I don't accept that we can know with any degree of certainty just how and when those developments occurred, and I definitely don't accept that they were all deviations from an earlier pristine teaching. The entire enterprise of historical textual analysis is too imprecise and speculative to warrant a central position in the understanding and practice of the Buddhadhamma.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Dhammanando wrote:Well, the commentarial view is that all knowable things are potentially accessible to [the Buddha's understanding, paññā], but that they are not all simultaneously accessible. We haven't yet got around to the question of what is meant by a knowable thing, but this too is an important qualification, for nowhere is it asserted that all things are knowable things. And so the Buddha's "omniscience" as the commentators understand it, is far from being the Allah-like or Jehovah-like omniscience that some Mahayana Buddhists posit. For example, there must be at least some future things that are not knowable things, since for all future things to be knowable would require all future things to be predetermined, which would conflict with the Buddha's rejection of fatalism.

santa100 wrote:And that's all fine and dandy David. There's certainly no need to associate any Allah-like attribute to our Buddha. Now, there's an important point to notice, that the "commentarial view" in Dhammanando's quote is exactly that of the Theravada exegetical tradition. Here is the full note from Bhikkhu Bodhi in his MN book:

[Note 714]: "MA explains that even though part of the statement is valid, the Buddha rejects the entire statement because of the portion that is invalid. The part of the statement that is valid is the assertion that the Buddha is omniscient and all-seeing; the part that is excessive is the assertion that knowledge and vision are continuously present to him. According to the Theravāda exegetical tradition the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know everything simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN 90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though not simultaneously, and at AN 4:24/ii.24 he claims to know all that can be seen, heard, sensed, and cognized. This is understood by the Theravāda commentators as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified sense. See too in this connection Miln 102–7."

With reference to the above quotes, Bodhi’s note for the “seen, heard, sensed…” at AN. 4.24, in his newly released translation of Aṅguttara Nikāya may be of interest:

662 Mp: “By these terms (jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ) the plane of omniscience (sabbaññutabhūmi) is indicated.” In the History of Buddhism, as well as in modern scholarship, the question of whether the Buddha claimed omniscience has been the subject of debate. The Buddha certainly rejected the claim that one could know everything all the time (see MN 71.5, I 482, 4–18) as well as the claim that one could know everything simultaneously (see MN 90.8, II 127, 28–30). But he also says that to hold that he totally rejects the possibility of omniscience is to misrepresent him MN 90.5, II 126, 31–27, 11).Thus is seems to follow that what the Buddha rejected is the possibility of continuous and simultaneous knowledge of everything, but not discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known (which would exclude much of the future, since it is not predetermined).

Who are you?’ said the Caterpillar.

Alice replied rather shyly, ‘I—I hardly know, sir, just at present—at least I knew who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.’”

662 Mp: “By these terms (jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ) the plane of omniscience (sabbaññutabhūmi) is indicated.” In the History of Buddhism, as well as in modern scholarship, the question of whether the Buddha claimed omniscience has been the subject of debate. The Buddha certainly rejected the claim that one could know everything all the time (see MN 71.5, I 482, 4–18) as well as the claim that one could know everything simultaneously (see MN 90.8, II 127, 28–30). But he also says that to hold that he totally rejects the possibility of omniscience is to misrepresent him MN 90.5, II 126, 31–27, 11).Thus is seems to follow that what the Buddha rejected is the possibility of continuous and simultaneous knowledge of everything, but not discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known (which would exclude much of the future, since it is not predetermined).

I know that I am a gawdawful heretic, thrashing about needlessly, but I'd rather take this compound, sabbaññu, as meaning knowing the all rather than all knowing, which could be grammatically possible, depending upon how the compound is parsed, but then, of course, it did not happen that way.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.